Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Oct 19, 2013 2:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

The more I talk to folks all these years later, many of whom I spent a great deal of time convincing that the DEAD were GREAT, it's that, unfortunately, they were not...

Quirky, appealing; great song writing w Hunter, etc., etc; but except for the early era, the voices barely cut the mustard (we are explaining their lack of appeal as a BAND, hence, vocals matter), and the band accomplishments (jams, tightness, great bass, whatever) are purely "niche related" in terms of "greatness". Like Jazz, in a way, but their niche was "60s, Americana".

Hence, they really were not popular enough for the simple reason that they were not good enough. No mass appeal; no amazing broad based talent...

Ed Abbey said repeatedly that Bob Dylan sucked; that all the 60s icons were mere blues/jazz rip offs; that they were at best entertainers, but NOT artists...don't agree, but there is an element of truth in that assessment relevant here, eh?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Oct 19, 2013 3:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

I think Ed Abbey is full of shit and has it backwards. Most aspired to artistry and succeeded or fell short to whatever degree their talent allowed. When I think of entertainers, I think of audience pleasers - doing what it takes to make the audiences happy - could be anywhere from Sammy Davis Jr. to Justin Timberlake. And most folks rip off something or someone in the beginning; it's what you do with it that counts. Hardly anyone bounces out fully formed with magic.

I do agree with you about the niche aspect. They were too quirky for mass consumption. But they did have their times (American Beauty and Touch of Gray). And bluedevil has it right: they sure made a shit-load of money.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BVD Date: Oct 19, 2013 4:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

In regards to the vocals or lack thereof I must agree with Mr. Tell. Vocals matter! I read reviews that get five stars that state something to this effect-I paraphrase The show was fuckin' killer. The vocals kind of weren't there but Jerry was shreddin' it and Phil was dropping bombs all night." Well for a show to be outstanding the vocals have to be there as well.So they buckled down for a few albums to get the vocals right and they sang and harmonized wonderfully together in that period. I don't know of it was sheer lack of discipline or just laziness to keep their vocal chops up. and yes they became wildly popular as bd and others mentioned. I pretty much quit going to shows after 74' and missed that period. No regrets.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Oct 19, 2013 6:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

And what would we rather have - The Eagles doing letter-perfect harmonies on their greatest hits or the Dead shredding and bombing?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Oct 20, 2013 9:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Or Jerry singing. Seriously, the Dead's vocals ARE a part of their appeal. Jerry has the most amazing feeling in his voice; he could sing the phone book and it would sound profound.

But that aspect isn't mass market, because yeah, it's not letter perfect and it has to "click" with you personally, which is more of a niche taste than standard polished harmonies and great vocal range, or shredding and bombing, for that matter.

And of course, all of them have, uh, awkward moments at the mike in just about every show. I guess that must have put off a lot of people who've listened to them on friends' tapes over the years. ("Ack. What's THAT?!?" And I don't mean just Donna.)

For me, though, the fact that they sound a bit like "ordinary guys" (as Neil Young does) is very appealing; it's part of why Brent's voice bugs me, because he's too polished. (Well, in an "it's all relative" sense.) That was part of the '60s sensibility; Janis was raw, Dylan was Dylan, cracking voices were "real." I guess it came out of folk and bluegrass, in part. But it speaks to me in a way that the Eagles never did in the least.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Oct 20, 2013 10:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

I think your points are well taken. I think the 60s generation was the first to allow imperfect singing to attain mass popularity. Also the first to demand that an performer create their own material. And I agree that it probably came from folk and bluegrass. I would also add the blues. I will say that as time rolled on, and the Dead voices deteriorated, I developed aural filters and concentrated on the music. And now, with so much 60s and 70s material at my command, it's a major reason why I don't delve into the latter years.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Oct 21, 2013 12:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Shred guitar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2008)
This article possibly contains original research. (January 2010)

Shred guitar or shredding is a lead playing style for the electric guitar, based on various fast soloing techniques. Critics have stated that shred guitar is associated with "sweep-picked arpeggios, diminished and harmonic minor scales, finger-tapping and whammy-bar abuse",[1] while other guitar writers say that rather than being a musical definition, it is a fairly subjective cultural term used by guitarists and enthusiasts of guitar music. It is usually used with reference to heavy metal guitar playing, where it is associated with rapid tapping solos and special effects such as whammy bar "dive bombs". The term is sometimes used with reference to playing outside this idiom, particularly bluegrass, country, jazz fusion and blues.[2][3]
Contents

1 History
2 Playing style
3 Equipment
4 Popular shred guitar bands
5 In media
6 References
7 External links

History

In 1974, the German band Scorpions used their new guitarist Ulrich Roth for their album Fly to the Rainbow, for which the title track features Roth performing "... one of the most menacing and powerful whammy-bar dive bombs ever recorded".[1] A year later, Roth's solo guitar playing for the album In Trance "... would become the prototype for shred guitar. Everything associated with the genre can be found on this brilliant collection of songs — sweep-picked arpeggios, diminished minor harmonic scales, finger-tapping and ... jaw-dropping whammy-bar abuse".[1]

In 1979, Roth left Scorpions to begin his own power trio, named "Electric Sun". His debut album Earthquake contained "... heaps of spellbinding fret gymnastics ... and nimble-fingered classical workouts."[1] In 1978, a "heretofore unknown guitarist named Eddie Van Halen" from Los Angeles released "'Eruption', a blistering aural assault of solo electric guitar" which featured rapid "tapping", which "had rarely been heard in a rock context before". Chris Yancik argues that it is this "record, above any other, that spawned the genre of Shred."[4]

Guitar Player's article "Blast Into Hyperspace With The Otherworldly Power Of Shred" reviews the book Shred! and states that the pioneers were "Eddie Van Halen, Al Di Meola and Ritchie Blackmore". This fast playing style combined with melody and technique and a heavily distorted tone of heavy metal music resulted in a new nickname "shred".[citation needed] Randy Rhoads and Yngwie J. Malmsteen advanced this style further with the infusion of Neo-classical elements. Progressive rock, heavy metal, hard rock, and jazz fusion have all made use of and adapted the style successfully over the years. In general, the phrase "shred guitar" has been traditionally associated with instrumental rock and heavy metal guitarists. This association has become less common now that modern forms of metal have adopted shredding as well. In the 1990s, its mainstream appeal diminished with the rise of grunge and nu metal, both of which eschewed flashy lead guitar solos. Underground acts like Shawn Lane and Buckethead continued to develop the genre further.[5][6]

In an interview in March 2011, Steve Vai described 'shred' as: "The terminology used for someone who can play an instrument, and has such a tremendous amount of technique that what they do just seems completely effortless and absurd. It's like this burst of energy that just comes out in extremely fast tearing kind of playing where the notes actually connect. Shred has to have a particular kind of 'tide' to it, I think, that actually gives you that 'blow away' factor that makes it impressive, to a certain degree."[7][8]
Playing style

Shred guitar has advanced rapidly. What was once 'fast' playing during the 1990s has been rapidly replaced by a new breed of shred guitar style twice or up to four times faster. The most recent ascent in speed seems to be centered around speed competitions using the classical music piece 'Flight of the Bumblebee.' Competitions in speed guitar have skyrocketed the speed expectation to speeds over 1000 beats per minute while picking four notes in each beat. The official world-record was set September 8th 2012 held by Daniel Himebauch at 1300 BPM (beats per minute.) There are speed demonstrations of varying degrees on the internet YouTube channel. Both male and female shred guitarists from various countries are setting up these YouTube channels and are at the cutting edge of that form of shred guitar. Tom Hard, Philip Taylor and a few others demonstrate similar speed.

Shredding includes "sweep, alternate and tremolo picking; string skipping; multi-finger tapping; legato, [and] trills." Speed Building, Legato, Tapping, [and] Sweep Picking techniques shredders need to know—sweep picking, tapping, legato playing, whammy bar abuse, speed riffing, [and] thrash chording. Shred guitarists use two- or three-octave scales, triads, or modes, played ascending and descending at a fast tempo. Often such runs are arranged in the form of an intricate sequential pattern, creating a more complex feel. This run or lick can be played by individually picking all, or a selection, of the notes, using techniques such as alternate picking or economy picking.[citation needed] Shredding has been used by many guitar players and become a huge technique in guitar, just like def leppard's Phil Collen's shredding technique.

Alternatively, the lick can be played by multiple-picking notes (tremolo picking), or picking just the first or second note of a string followed by a rapid succession of hammer-ons and/or pull-offs (legato). Rhythmically, a shredder may include precise usage of syncopation and polyrhythms. Sweep picking is used to play rapid arpeggios across the fretboard (sometimes on all strings). The tapping technique is used to play rapid flourishes of notes or to play arpeggios or scalar patterns using pure legato with no picking. Various techniques are used to perform passages with wide intervals, and to create a flowing legato sound. Some performers utilize complex combinations of tapping, sweeping, and classical-style finger picking. This increases speed by reducing the motion of the strumming hand.
Equipment

Shred guitar players often use electric solidbody guitars such as Ibanez, Gibson, Fender, Kramer, Carvin, Jackson, Charvel, Schecter, B.C. Rich and ESP. Some shred guitarists use elaborately-shaped models by B.C. Rich or Dean, as well as modern versions of classic-radical designs like Gibson's Flying V and Explorer models. Guitars with double-cutaways give performers easier access to the higher frets. Some shred guitarists, such as Scorpions' Ulrich Roth, have used custom-made tremolo bars and developed modified instruments, such as Roth's "Sky Guitar, that would greatly expand his instrumental range, enabling him to reach notes previously reserved in the string world for cellos and violins."[1]

Some shred guitar players use seven or eight string guitars to allow a greater range of notes, such as Steve Vai.[9] Most shred guitar players use a range of effects such as distortion and compression to facilitate the performance of shred techniques such as tapping, hammer-ons, and pull-offs, to create a unique tone. Shred-style guitarists often use high-gain vacuum tube amplifiers such as Marshall, Carvin, Peavey, Mesa Boogie, ENGL, Laney, Hughes & Kettner, Krank and Randall.
Popular shred guitar bands
Question book-new.svg
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2012)

Shred guitar was most prominent in the 1980s in the heavy metal and "hair" metal genres. As for the "hair" metal bands,the most popular among them were Ratt, Dokken, Def Leppard, Poison, Mötley Crüe, Warrant, Whitesnake, Skid Row, Tesla, etc. "Hair" Metal is typically known for using shred guitar the most and often ridiculed because of its excessive use of mindless shredding and "whammy bar" abuse. As for the heavy metal bands that used shred guitar, the most popular were Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Queensryche, etc. After the 1980s, bands that used shred guitar techniques became almost non-existent. Later on in the 2000s bands started to use shred guitar techniques once again.
In media

In 2011, Guitar World Magazine focused on how shredding exists outside of heavy metal music with an article pointing out the magazine's Top 5 Shredding Bluegrass songs. The list included songs by instrumentalists Tony Rice, Josh Williams, Bryan Sutton, Chris Thile and David Grier.[10] Music Radar's list of the top 20 greatest shred guitarists of time featured Al Di Meola, John Petrucci and Steve Vai as the top three, respectively. Guitar World ranked Al Di Meola - Elegant Gypsy, Van Halen - Van Halen, and Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard of Ozz, as the top three shred albums of all time, respectively.[11]

In 2003, Guitar One Magazine voted Michael Angelo Batio the fastest shredder of all time.[12][13] In the same year, Guitar One voted Chris Impellitteri the 2nd fastest shredder of all time followed by Yngwie Malmsteen at 3rd.[12][13] The current fastest shred guitar player in the world is a 28-year-old music teacher in Colorado named John Taylor, as certified by the Guinness Book of World Records where he played Flight of the Bumblebee without error at 600 BPM at the Guitar Center in Westminster, Colorado in April 2011 [14]

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Oct 21, 2013 2:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Very informative. Guess Jerry doesn't make the top 20. Doh.

Certainly hope you are donating to Wikipedia.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Oct 20, 2013 2:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

shredding and bombing...??

if you asked any member of the band if they were responsible for either of this... THEY WOULD NOT KNOW WTF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.


shredding and bombing.....LOL

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Oct 21, 2013 6:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Don't project your ignorance on to others.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Oct 21, 2013 12:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

drop dead.

do the world a favor.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Oct 20, 2013 10:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Just paraphrasing BVD. I think maybe they would. Shredding has been an accepted description for lighting playing for a long time and the Dead community foisted bombing into the music world.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Oct 19, 2013 2:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Have to look to the Great White North - by way of Arkansas - to find the GREAT American Band (North America that is):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Y987Uf1wY

And it's ludicrous to say the dead were not massively popular - they were the single biggest draw in the concert industry for a number of years and they are still raking in the dollars off their music and related merchandising nearly 20 years after Jerry's death (and 30 or more after they were musically relevant). How many other bands, outside of the big classic rock bands, still continue to draw such revenue? Also, we're now seeing the great grandchildren of original heads get turned onto the music by musicians of the moment:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-national-recruit-indie-stars-for-grateful-dead-tribute-album-20130802



This post was modified by bluedevil on 2013-10-19 21:59:26

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Oct 21, 2013 6:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Yeah, I found that "no mass appeal" statement kind of stunning for a couple of reasons. First, they clearly do have a kind of mass appeal. Second, is "mass appeal" now the benchmark of greatness? Was Thelonious Monk not great? How come he never hit the mainstream?

I mean, really, to boil it all down to vocals with the Dead is just plain silly and totally misses the point.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffMonte B Cowboy Date: Oct 21, 2013 1:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

All the way on one end is Top-Forty. It is centered around the Vocals... and it's mostly about Simple music. This is the lowest common denominator and the largest mass appeal. (American Idol.)

GD was the hippest counterculture band out there in the late '60s and early '70s. Then along came their Alembic PA system in '73. There was nothing like it before this! Believe me, this put the "fear factor" into any band like what Little Sense mentions - "I could never go back to the prepackaged, practiced till it was rote, memorized and exact copies of the same old riff that has been played over and over again in exactly the same way...and the crowds that are expecting the note for note album version of what ever hit song is hot right now." - because most of these bands would sound pretty lousy when everything is heard crystal clearly. Many bands would have been (or were) scared shitless to play through a perfect-sounding PA system like the Dead's wall of sound. Most of them needed to play through PAs with lots of distortion and reverb and other sound-blurring effects. Not the Dead. They wanted to hear everything clearly. It makes perfect sense if you want to hear the other players so you can: jam with them "musically"; harmonize with them vocally; play in tune with them; etc.

And I was in the same dilemma as Little Sense mentions. I saw a lot of concerts in the NJ / NYC area from '71 onward. I would try to catch everything that was "cool". When I first heard their live tapes and saw the Dead at shows in '73, it was a night and day experience and I couldn't go back.

GD had a huge counterculture and musical appeal. The crowds and venues in '73 were too damned large for me. Watkins Glen had 600,000 people, once you "made it" into the crowd area. I noticed a patron listening to the soundcheck jam tapes and commenting, "how could a guy stay in his tent"? Duh, well just suppose, what if the 500,000 of us in the rear all climbed over the 100,000 in the front at the same time? I was in survival mode for the whole event, and I never recall ever seeing the stage, nor attempting to see it. Why bother? The dilemma for me was not going to Watkins Glen, so I went. Either way was a mistake.

Lastly, thanks to Donna's shrieking in Playin' and in Greatest Story Ever Told in '73, she was an easier target for any mockery about the Dead's singing issues. (Otherwise I liked her singing.) This mockery, and the huge crowds, are probably the two easiest things to use to disregard the Dead at the time. Once I stopped going to see them, I stopped going.

Althea is right about Jerry's singing... "he could sing the phone book" and it would sound profound".

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Oct 21, 2013 11:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Well, I suppose it depends on your defn of "mass"...and yeah, as you and Rose point out, the vocals are fine by us, but the question was why weren't they as pop as the Eagles?

The answer could have been, the name, as the poster indicated, or something more...

And, all the posters outlined what the possible "more" answers might be, and one, I think, is in fact, poor vocals.

It was the number one complaint I dealt with in my forty yrs as cheer leader.

I am absolutely serious; my parents, my friends, my former friends: everyone of the hundreds I attempted to convert would at some pt raise this problem

Do you really not have that recollection?

To me, when folks hereabouts don't say "oh yeah, Tell's right about the vocals post 72" it simply means you're an elitist snob that was NOT doing your job.

Not you per se, but truly: if you had been talking up the DEAD for forty yrs, taking on ANY and ALL comers on the topic (I am not making it up, I was always pitching the DEAD the way you guys think I pitch CREAM now)...

If you do that, you find out why so many don't "convert"...

It's not the name, it's not the bass, it's not the actual song writing, except for nonHunter songs...

It's the VOCALs...

Plus, a few other things...but that's what years of experience taught me. And why I know the studio albums were the only way to fight that perception: Am Beauty allows you to argue they are decent enough (but NOT the Beach Boys nor the Eagles...not even CSNY).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Oct 21, 2013 1:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

I do agree with you that vocals are a huge problem and bow to your experience as a cheerleader, as I never really attempted much proselytization - you either got it or you didn't.

I would posit another major issue for the band: most people (our present merry band here excluded) do not like or understand jamming. They can understand one trip through the verse and chorus as a guitar solo, but a 20 minute Playin really tries their patience. This is the heart of the GD experience - pushing boundaries, delving deeper into the mystery.... and the "mass" audience would prefer something more bite-sized and comprehensible. They are not on the bus! If you're not there for that experience, you'll never get the Dead.

Luckily, a couple million of us got it.

How about the songs themselves? Not very many are conducive to "mass" appeal... Wharf Rat won't make top 40. Very few are frothy pop songs, maybe Sugar Mag, Touch or Alabama Getaway....


and I'll quibble with you WT: the vocals were pretty bad before 72; Jerry (and Bob) improved a great deal between 67 and 72, and although Phil had impressive range, his vocals were NEVER good despite being on pitch.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Oct 21, 2013 2:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

I dunno; are you telling me there was never a phase where when anyone walked in the door, you said "okay, you gotta hear this!" and that when they said "bleech" you didn't rise up to smite the heathen? Er, muster the evidence, saying "what do you MEAN they can't sing!??" and play Am Beat say, Attics or some such?

You just let them walk all over YOUR band?

Well, I didn't...

;)

It wasn't cause I was insecure; I KNEW they were great and that if YOU just heard what I've heard, you'd be won over...otherwise, how do you defend your appreciation for art?

Are you really willing to accept it's all fad and fashion? There's NOTHING defensible--no standards apply? The drivel spouted off round here about "it's all opinion...it's all subjective...WHO knows which H2H is BEST???"

Well, tell them Tell knows which frickin H2H is BEST!!!

And, I have some flute recordings to sell you...

:)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Oct 21, 2013 3:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Best H2H?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgsRW4qksm4

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Oct 20, 2013 10:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Hey Tell, you got me curious. Who did Ed Abbey consider to be artists then?

Speaking of entertainers, I just happened to be channel surfing just now and ran into a recent Gregg Allman concert and he was doing an impassioned version of a Jackson Browne song "These Days." Who would have thunk?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Oct 20, 2013 12:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Yeah, Abbey was a real sexist blowhard, but he articulated some excellent "positions" that someone "needed to" (if you follow; like blowing up Glen Cyn Dam, closing the border, etc., etc.), even if you disagree with a lot of the polarization that it typified...

Of course, as a eco/conservation/bio prof, I have taught classes with Desert Solitaire and MWGang and so on as texts for yrs, but only recently re-read and got into his journals and all the books that have come out the past decade that allow one to see DEEP behind the curtain, blah, blah, blah.

I think a lot of his comments like the ones I allude to were just to stir things up (like what I do around here, eh? har, har). But, he clearly didn't listen to 60s/pop/etc, though he LOVED music (all classical, all the time; plus, anything "roots Americana", etc., etc.).

I do think that his position causes one to think about the distinction, on the continuum I suppose, from pure fluff, entertainers to pure, unpopular, iconoclastic artist, eh?

I would imagine he'd say that Michael Jackson was NO artist, but a great entertainer? YOu can take it from there w that line of reasoning I suppose...

Ha! That's funny about "These Days" (used to love that tune...the dark and moody JB, eh?! His early albums were just great, ya know? Loved seeing him with Linda [bless her whale size body--I am catching up her too!] Ronstadt in 74 & 75...great, great shows.

Entertainers more than artists, I suppose? Dunno--but I had a huge crush on Linda!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Oct 28, 2013 5:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: speaking of Abbey ...

... turns out that's what my son's class is reading in high school. From Desert Solitaire, not Monkeywrench Gang. (Or Abbey's journals.) Although MWGang would make an interesting hands-on field experience. Did you do labs with it? Or has the statute of limitations not run out?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Oct 30, 2013 4:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: speaking of Abbey ...

No labs; just allude to him regularly, and have some assigned readings, etc. I figure that any kid growing up in the Southwest should know the name, and they used to...nowadays, when I ask if ANY of them have heard of him, I can get a big fat "huh?"...that's a shock.

So, I ease them into it if it's a class with no Assignments of ED; let them watch Lonely are the Brave, etc. They always love him...John Nichols as well; the Blow Hard and his Bean Field Friend, a real pair if ever there was...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Oct 20, 2013 8:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Ed Abbey? Darryl Cherney and Dana Lyons, I guess :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Oct 21, 2013 11:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Ha! Those are obscure...good ones!

;)

[the folks hereabouts that thought I was a drooling sexist should really take a look at Abbey; his journal is worse than my diary as a 14 yr old FROSH...jeeezzz!!]

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Oct 22, 2013 2:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

Well, he was born in 1927. Same generation as Kerouac/Neal Cassady etc. For a lot of those guys it was part of being anti-status quo and radical and all. Epater la bourgeoisie. I don't suppose he ever got his consciousness raised, though.

I can't remember whether it was Abbey or Dave Foreman who, when asked by a rather more p.c. group of eco-folks how he could EVER be an environmentalist and still eat MEAT, he replied, "I'm trying to get rid of the cattle on public land by eating them all."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPhWfSeMYHA



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Oct 20, 2013 4:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: What's in a name? 'The Grateful Dead'

"I would imagine he'd say that Michael Jackson was NO artist, but a great entertainer? YOu can take it from there w that line of reasoning I suppose..."

And I would agree with him. I think part of the artist bit for me has to do with creating. So for music, writing most if not all your material.

I saw JB many times (I'm an LA dude). The first was in the early 70s when he opened for Joni Mitchell. I knew he would be huge - the girls just squirmed. He was similar to Jerry in that he just hated tuning - couldn't do - chatted constantly while trying. I remember him complaining about being a solo act and telling us that he wouldn't be doing this again - too stressful. Next time I saw him a few months later he introduced a close friend of his who would be helping him out - David Lindley. God he was amazing.

I saw Linda bunches too - first time when the Stone Poneys opened for Van Morrison. I refuse to have in mind a Linda Ronstadt with a whale-size body. Just refuse. :) And it makes me very sad that she can't even sing Happy Birthday anymore.

So much for Sunday afternoon reminiscing.

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)